1. 對話西達·斯考克波

A Conversation with Theda Skocpol

2. 發(fā)達民主國家中的中右翼政黨

Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies

3. 美國規(guī)章制定的政治分析

The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States

4. 癮品與戰(zhàn)爭：它們之間是何種關系？

Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship?

5. 特惠貿易協(xié)定的經濟與政治分析

The Economics and Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements

6. 言論自由與言論仇恨

Free Speech and Hate Speech

7. 民粹主義的政治學理論

Political Theory of Populism

8. 情感極化在美國的起源與后果  

The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States

9. 理解國際制度的設計

Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions

10. 住房政治

The Politics of Housing

題目：A Conversation with Theda Skocpol

作者：Theda Skocpol，當代著名歷史社會學家，哈佛大學政府系和社會學系Victor S. Thomas講席教授。

摘要：2017年12月斯考克波在哈佛大學接受了采訪。斯考克波教授目前是哈佛大學政府系和社會學系的Victor S. Thomas講席教授，她是政治科學等領域諸多專著和論文的作者，這些代表作有《國家與社會革命》、《保衛(wèi)士兵與母親》、《消弭的民主：從美國公民生活的成員到管理》以及與瓦奈薩·威廉姆森（Vanessa Williamson）合作的《茶黨與共和黨保守主義的重構》等。斯考克波曾先后擔任美國政治學會和社會科學歷史學會主席。由于其杰出貢獻，她被選為美國人文與藝術科學院院士、美國哲學學會會士以及美國科學院院士，并曾斬獲約翰·斯凱特獎（Johan Skytte Prize）。加州大學伯克利分校政治學系Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott講席教授埃里克·施克勒（Eric Schickler）采訪了斯考克波本人，本文刊發(fā)的是編輯后的文字稿，專訪的視頻鏈接地址為https://www./r/theda-skocpol.

An interview with Theda Skocpol took place at Harvard University in December 2017. Professor Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. Skocpol is the author of numerous books and articles well known in political science and beyond, including States and Social Revolutions, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, and The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (the latter coauthored with Vanessa Williamson). Skocpol has served as President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association. Among her honors, she is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences, and she was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. She was interviewed by Eric Schickler, the Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. The following is an edited transcript; a video of the entire interview can be viewed at https://www./r/theda-skocpol.

題目：Center-Right Political Parties in Advanced Democracies

作者：Noam Gidron，希伯來大學政治科學系助理教授；Daniel Ziblatt，哈佛大學政府系Eaton講席教授。

摘要：本文提出了一個關于發(fā)達民主國家中右翼政黨的比較研究議程，并將美國政治研究與比較政治研究相結合。政治學家近來仔細研究了中左翼政黨的衰落和極右翼政黨的崛起，但對中右翼政黨衰落的研究則寥寥無幾。團結的中右翼政黨促進了政治穩(wěn)定和政治妥協(xié)，而他們的分裂則賦予了極右翼挑戰(zhàn)者以力量。在概述了西方民主國家的右翼政治研究，并權衡了對選舉權利的不同界定后，作者討論了影響中右翼政黨凝聚力的兩個因素：中右翼政黨機構的組織穩(wěn)健性以及保守派選民在不同政策維度上的同質性與差異性。最后，作者認為一個對極右翼政黨崛起的充分解釋不能僅關注中左翼政黨的策略，還應當兼顧中右翼政黨的選擇、機遇和約束。

This review proposes a comparative research agenda on center-right parties in advanced democracies, bringing together research in American and comparative politics. Political scientists have recently closely examined the decline of the center-left and the rise of the radical right but have paid less attention to the weakening of center-right parties. Yet cohesive center-right parties have facilitated political stability and compromises, while their disintegration has empowered radical challengers. After presenting an overview of right-wing politics in Western democracies and weighing different definitions of the electoral right, we discuss two factors that shape variations in center-right cohesion: organizational robustness of center-right partisan institutions and the (un)bundling of conservative mass attitudes on different policy dimensions. Last, we argue that a full account of the rise of the radical right cannot focus solely on the strategies of the center-left but must incorporate also the choices, opportunities, and constraints of center-right parties.

題目：The Politics of Rulemaking in the United States

作者：Susan Webb Yackee，威斯康星·麥迪遜大學La Follette公共事務學院院長、 Collins-Bascom講席教授。

摘要：規(guī)章制定是美國政府與治理之中的關鍵部分。本文回顧了現代規(guī)章制定中的政治基礎。具體來說，本文突出了部門規(guī)章制定的過程和影響，以及立法機關，民選行政機關和法院用于監(jiān)督政策制定過程的關鍵工具。本文同樣檢視了是誰參與了規(guī)則制定的過程，以及誰影響了規(guī)則制定的內容。最后，本文探索了監(jiān)督政策制定的新發(fā)展方向，包括數據收集方面的進步，以及用指導文件來取代傳統(tǒng)的發(fā)行通知和評論規(guī)章。

Rulemaking is a critical part of American government and governance. This article reviews the political underpinnings of modern rulemaking. Specifically, it highlights the process and impact of agency regulations, as well as the key tools used by the legislature, elected executive, and courts to oversee the rulemaking process. The article also reviews who participates in the rulemaking process, as well as who influences regulatory content. Finally, new directions in regulatory policymaking are explored, including data collection advancements, as well as the potential role for guidance documents as replacements for more traditionally issued notice and comment regulations.

題目：Drugs and War: What Is the Relationship?

作者：Peter Andreas，布朗大學Watston國際與公共事務學院John Hay講席教授。

摘要：癮品與戰(zhàn)爭之間的關系究竟是什么？本文識別并追蹤了兩者在五個維度上的關系：用癮品動員的戰(zhàn)爭；保護癮品貿易的戰(zhàn)爭；對癮品征稅引發(fā)的戰(zhàn)爭；禁毒戰(zhàn)爭；戰(zhàn)后的癮品。本文通過提供不同時間、地理以及癮品的經驗證據，證明了前述維度的重要性。在此之前，政治學家和其他學者無一例外的忽略了癮品與戰(zhàn)爭間的關系，或者只聚焦了其中一個維度，其普遍的做法重點強調了諸如可卡因和海洛因等違禁癮品與歷史上諸如煙草和酒等導致武裝沖突的合法“癮品”的歷史中心地位。然而，將歷史上并分布極廣的癮品（無論是合法的還是違禁的）置于前沿和中心的位置進行分析可以提供一種校正措施，使得人們能充分理解癮品與戰(zhàn)爭之間的多重聯(lián)系。當代觀點強調以癮品為收入的非國家暴力行為者的威脅日益加劇，而本文作為對當代觀點的平衡，更強調我們需要從癮品與戰(zhàn)爭間的數百年歷史關系中發(fā)現其他的研究進路：它與治國理政相關，也與國家所追求的戰(zhàn)略目標相關。

What is the relationship between psychoactive drugs and war? This review article identifies and traces five key dimensions of this relationship: war while on drugs, war for drugs, war through drugs, war against drugs, and drugs after war. The review provides empirical illustrations across times, places, and drugs to demonstrate the importance of each of these dimensions. Political scientists and other scholars have typically either ignored the drugs–war relationship or focused on only one dimension. The common tendency is to privilege illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin in the contemporary era over the historical centrality of legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol in relation to armed conflict. Placing both history and a wider range of drugs (legal and illegal) front and center in the analysis provides a corrective that allows for a fuller and richer understanding of the multiple linkages between psychoactive substances and warfare. It also suggests that as a counterbalance to contemporary accounts stressing the growing threat posed by drug-financed violent nonstate actors, we should recognize the many ways in which the centuries-old nexus between drugs and war has also been about statecraft and the pursuit of the state's strategic objectives.

題目：The Economics and Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements

作者：Leonardo Baccini，麥吉爾大學政治學系副教授

摘要：在過去20年間，特惠貿易協(xié)定的數量飛漲?，F代特惠貿易協(xié)定不僅削減了邊界上有形的貿易障礙，而且削弱了境內由于管制外國直接投資、自由化服務和知識產權保護而形成的障礙。本文回顧了解釋特惠貿易協(xié)定形成與影響的文獻。在特惠貿易協(xié)定的形成方面，借助工業(yè)部門以及公司層面的數據，現有研究的關注逐漸從對特惠自由化宏觀基礎轉向特惠貿易協(xié)定的微觀基礎。在特惠貿易協(xié)定的影響方面，關于特惠貿易協(xié)定在與貿易量和外國直接投資方面存在穩(wěn)健的正向關系，盡管特惠自由化在公共福利上的作用仍然有待研究，但這些都與發(fā)展中國家的經濟改革有關。本文對推進特惠貿易協(xié)定研究提出了一些具體建議。特別是，作者認為對特惠貿易協(xié)定感興趣的學者將受益于正在進行的關于貿易自由化的分配性后果的辯論。這不僅為當前的許多學術和政策研究提供了信息，而且有著民主政體中政治辯論的特征。

The number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has skyrocketed over the past 20 years. In addition to reducing barriers at the border, modern PTAs remove many behind-the-border barriers by regulating foreign direct investment (FDI), liberalizing services, and protecting intellectual property rights. This article surveys the literature explaining the formation of PTAs and their consequences. Regarding the formation of PTAs, studies have gradually moved from exploring the macro-foundation of preferential liberalization to focusing on the micro-foundation of PTAs, relying on industry- and firm-level data. Regarding the effect of PTAs, there is robust evidence that PTAs substantively increase trade flows and FDI and are associated with economic reforms in developing countries, though the general welfare effect of preferential liberalization remains largely unexplored. I make some concrete suggestions on avenues toward which to push the research on PTAs. In particular, I argue that scholars interested in PTAs would benefit from engaging in debate about the distributional consequences of trade liberalization, which not only informs much of the current academic and policy research but also features in political debates taking place in democratic polities.

題目：Free Speech and Hate Speech

作者：Jeffrey W. Howard，倫敦大學學院公共政策學院助理教授

摘要：發(fā)表仇恨言論應該被禁止嗎？本文主張關于這一問題的爭論必須被拆分成幾個獨立的分析階段，以免討論者們不停地自說自話。第一個階段關注于言論自由這一道德權利的范圍，以及發(fā)表仇恨言論是否在這一權利的保護范圍內。如果它在這一范圍內，那么禁止發(fā)表仇恨言論必然是不公正的；如果不屬于這一范圍，那么就轉向第二個分析階段，即評估發(fā)言者是否有道德義務避免發(fā)表仇恨言論。本文討論了由這一義務衍生而來的其他可能義務，包括不進行威脅、騷擾、冒犯、誹謗和煽動的義務。如果存在避免發(fā)表仇恨言論的義務，那么就存在一個更深層次的問題，這一義務是否真的應該被執(zhí)行呢？第三個分析階段取決于對現實的關懷，包括認知的易錯性，國家權力的濫用以及對高壓政治的抵制性言論的益處。

Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right’s protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion.

題目：Political Theory of Populism

作者：Nadia Urbinati，哥倫比亞大學政治學系Kyriakos Tsakopoulos講席教授。

摘要：民粹主義是一種世界級現象，其定義的不確定性眾所周知。因為民粹主義的話語和意涵與其崛起時所處的政治文化環(huán)境息息相關，所以它反對民粹主義的普遍化定義，并促使政治學者在比較中理解概念的實質。大量的社會歷史分析使我們能夠將民粹主義置于全球性的民主現象中加以探討，因為民粹主義的意識形態(tài)內核是由民族和人民兩個主要實體滋養(yǎng)的。而正是這兩個實體，在民主浪潮時期充實了人民主權的內涵。民粹主義蘊涵著多數民主原則和人民意涵的嬗變，這表現為歌頌人民中的一部分、反對人民中的另一部分，并且通過具現化民粹主義領袖，合法化其擁躉來實現。盡管民粹主義的主要原則根植于民主理論的意涵與話語，但其理論嬗變仍使得民粹主義可能會與憲政民主相沖突。在本文中，作者闡述了民粹主義情境特征，以及其周期性出現如何反映著代議制政府的形式。作者回顧了新近研究中對民粹主義概念的主要解釋，并且認為現存對民粹主義的共識集中在民粹主義的修辭學特征以及其在民主社會中獲得權力的策略。最后，作者勾勒了民粹主義的主要特征并解釋了其如何傾向于改變民主的基本要素：人民與多數原則、選舉和代表。

Populism is the name of a global phenomenon whose definitional precariousness is proverbial. It resists generalizations and makes scholars of politics comparativist by necessity, as its language and content are imbued with the political culture of the society in which it arises. A rich body of socio-historical analyses allows us to situate populism within the global phenomenon called democracy, as its ideological core is nourished by the two main entities—the nation and the people—that have fleshed out popular sovereignty in the age of democratization. Populism consists in a transmutation of the democratic principles of the majority and the people in a way that is meant to celebrate one subset of the people as opposed to another, through a leader embodying it and an audience legitimizing it. This may make populism collide with constitutional democracy, even if its main tenets are embedded in the democratic universe of meanings and language. In this article, I illustrate the context-based character of populism and how its cyclical appearances reflect the forms of representative government. I review the main contemporary interpretations of the concept and argue that some basic agreement now exists on populism's rhetorical character and its strategy for achieving power in democratic societies. Finally, I sketch the main characteristics of populism in power and explain how it tends to transform the fundamentals of democracy: the people and the majority, elections, and representation.

題目：The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States

作者：Shanto Iyengar，斯坦福大學政治學系教授；Yphtach Lelkes，賓夕法尼亞大學Annenberg傳播學院助理教授；Matthew Levendusky，賓夕法尼亞大學政治學系教授；Neil Malhotra，斯坦福大學商學院教授；Sean J. Westwood，達特茅斯學院政府系助理教授。

摘要：雖然之前的極化主要是以議題為基礎，但是近年來在公共輿論中出現了一種新型的分裂：即美國大眾越來越不喜歡和不信任來自另一黨派的人。民主黨和共和黨都聲稱對方的成員是虛偽的、自私的和固步自封的，他們不愿意與其進行跨黨派的交往。這種黨派之間的敵意現象便是情感極化。本文將情感極化的起源追溯到作為一種社會認同的黨派偏見，并解釋加劇黨派之間敵意的因素。本文還探討了情感極化的后果，強調黨派情感如何影響了政治領域之外的態(tài)度和行為。最后，本文討論了緩解黨派不和的可能策略，并對未來的研究提出了建議。

While previously polarization was primarily seen only in issue-based terms, a new type of division has emerged in the mass public in recent years: Ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party. Democrats and Republicans both say that the other party’s members are hypocritical, selfish, and closed-minded, and they are unwilling to socialize across party lines. This phenomenon of animosity between the parties is known as affective polarization. We trace its origins to the power of partisanship as a social identity, and explain the factors that intensify partisan animus. We also explore the consequences of affective polarization, highlighting how partisan affect influences attitudes and behaviors well outside the political sphere. Finally, we discuss strategies that might mitigate partisan discord and conclude with suggestions for future work.

題目：Making Sense of the Design of International Institutions

作者：Erik Voeten，喬治城大學Edmund A. Walsh外事學院及政府系合聘教授。

摘要：對國際制度的設計有許多不同的方式。各制度在靈活性、正式性、獨立性、精確性、包容性、集權化程度等方面不盡相同。本文嘗試對學界現有的理論進行分類以期能理解各個國際制度之間的相似與不同。首先，一些理論將關注點放在試圖構建均衡行為的博弈或契約上，而其它理論則將制度設計視為一個動態(tài)的過程。其次，各個理論的分歧還在于是將制度設計理解為對環(huán)境的反應，還是將它看作是制度創(chuàng)設者的動機、利益、價值觀、倡議和權力的產物。在根據上述兩個維度對各理論進行分類的基礎上，本文討論了四種理想的理論路徑：理性功能主義、分配理性主義、歷史制度主義和結構過程理論。這些理論路徑確定了導致制度設計失靈或者未能達到最優(yōu)效果的不同原因：國內政治、權力政治、路徑依賴和文化。最后本文總結并討論了這些理論如何能幫助我們理解當前制度設計所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。

The design of international institutions varies in many ways: Institutions can be more or less formal, flexible, independent, precise, inclusive, centralized, and so on. This article classifies theoretical efforts to make sense of these similarities and differences. First, some theories focus on the bargains or contracts that attempt to construct equilibrium behavior while other theories analyze institutional design as a dynamic process. Second, theories vary in whether they understand institutional design as a response to the environment in which institutions operate or as a function of the incentives, interests, values, initiatives, and power of the actors that created the institutions. The article discusses four ideal-typical theoretical approaches that fit in each quadrant of the resulting 2×2 typology: rational functionalist, distributive rationalist, historical institutionalist, and structural process theories. These approaches identify different causes for suboptimal or even dysfunctional institutional design: domestic politics, power politics, path dependence, and culture. The conclusion discusses how these theories can help us make sense of current challenges to institutions and their design.

題目：The Politics of Housing

作者：Ben W. Ansell，牛津大學Nuffield學院比較民主制度教授

摘要：購買一套住房是大多數家庭最重要的經濟決定。然而，我們對房屋所有權的政治原因和政治后果的理解仍然是相當單薄的。本文認為政治學家需要更嚴肅地探討住房問題，尤其是鑒于過去二十年來房價史無前例的暴漲和暴跌。住房市場既是社會分化加劇的一個表現，也是造成這一現象的原因。日益加劇的社會分化塑造了民眾對從福利國家的規(guī)模到民粹運動的吸引力等一系列政治問題的看法。本文首先重新審視了19世紀關于房地產的經典著作，這些著作仍然指導著我們找尋房地產市場震蕩和管控下的贏家和輸家。然后，本文轉向戰(zhàn)后時期那些認為福利國家和財產所有權在某種程度上是相互替代的著作。本文最后考察了住房在形塑當代政治偏好中的角色，指出它既是衡量個人財富和福利的直接指標也是不同地區(qū)相對財富的體現。

Owning a house is the most important economic choice most families will ever make. Yet, our understanding of the political causes and consequences of homeownership is rather thin. This review argues that political scientists need to take housing much more seriously, not least because of the unprecedented surges and collapses of house prices over the past two decades. The housing market is both a proxy for and a cause of growing social cleavages that shape how citizens view political issues from the size of the welfare state to the attractiveness of populist campaigns. The articles begins by reexamining classic work on property from the nineteenth century as a still-relevant guide to the winners and losers from property market shocks and regulations. It then turns to the postwar era and work that suggests that the welfare state and property ownership are in some sense substitutes. It concludes by examining the role housing plays in shaping contemporary political preferences, both as a direct measure of individuals’ wealth and welfare and as a proxy for the relative fortunes of different places.

編譯/審讀：康張城、施榕、楊端程、吳溫泉、趙德昊

編輯：郭靜遠